A file photo shows the aftermath of the “fake” Ishrat Jahan encounter and, right, Amit Shah.

MUMBAI: An Indian court dropped charges Tuesday against the president of the Hindu nationalist ruling party, who was accused of ordering the killing of an alleged gangster nearly a decade ago.

Human rights activists said those who were shot dead, all Muslims, were victims of a so-called “fake encounter” — a staged gunbattle.

“The inference drawn by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) is not accepted in totality and Shah cannot be charged as an accused,” said special court judge M.B. Gosavi.

The CBI had accused Shah when he was home minister of Gujarat state of ordering the death of a Muslim man, Sohrabuddin Sheikh, and of implicating him in a conspiracy to assassinate Modi, who was then Gujarat’s chief minister.

The opposition Congress, ousted in the national polls by the BJP, alleged there had been “government pressure” on the CBI to clear Shah.

The CBI has become “chained, caged and totally immobilized,” said Congress spokesman Ajoy Kumar.

Twitter was abuzz with angry comments against the ruling with some calling it “fake justice” for a fake encounter.

Investigative journalist Rana Ayyub, who did a series of reports for Tehelka magazine pinpointing Shah’s damning role in the fake encounter, was incensed at the ruling.

“As a journalist who painstakingly collected documents, investigated the fake encounters despite threats, my head hangs in shame,” she tweeted. That tweet was preceded by another one full of sarcasm at the miscarriage of justice: “Court accepts Shah’s discharge plea. Big day for social justice in India! How many stains shall you carry, 2014? Sick, disgusted.”

Police alleged that Muslim militants wanted to kill Modi in revenge for the death of at least 1,000 people, mainly Muslims, in Gujarat riots in 2002. Authorities then announced they had died as a result of an “encounter” with the state anti-terrorist squad.

The CBI, which comes under the control of the Prime Minister’s Office, said it would “study the order” and decide whether to appeal the ruling.

[wpResize]